Amy’s Marginalia: The Great Divorce

I love it when God, in his perfect timing, decides to give me just the right information, just when I need it.  That happened last week, when I was reading C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce for the second time in my life.  The first time I read it, I was in high school, and the thing went right over my head.  This time, I read it, and I at least knew what questions to ask when I got confused.  It’s progress, I suppose.

Poor Dan.  He took me out for a romantic dinner last weekend, and all I wanted to do was pepper him with deep theological conundrums this book was creating for me.  I could tell he was looking to unwind, and I was just revving up for some heavy analytical work.  But, as always, he was patient with me and helped me sort out some of my questions.

And this week, our pastor was teaching on a very helpful portion of scripture, I Peter 3:17-22. I felt blessed by God’s providential timing, that I could get some more answers to the questions that were bothering me.  Verses 18 and 19 are particularly appropriate: “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison.”  It’s the “spirits in prison” bit that particularly confuses a lot of people, and in The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis is merely giving his own take on the verse. 

The plot of the short story is fairly straight forward. A bus load of people from hell go to heaven for a little vacation.  Obviously, trouble ensues.  But the confusing stuff comes from Lewis’ ideas coming out of the mouths of the heaven dwellers, about the relationship between heaven and hell.  

In this highly unorthodox version, hell and heaven aren’t so neatly separated.  Traffic can flow from hell (or the Valley of the Shadow of Death) to heaven (or the Valley of the Shadow of Life) but not the other way around.  Unsaved souls can choose to take their vacation on Earth to visit old “haunts” or see what they are missing in heaven.  When they visit heaven, they are ghostlike (“man-shaped stains on the brightness of that air”), while the heavenly people are surreally solid, like everything else in heaven.  The longer ghosts stick around in heaven, and the more they climb the mountains, the more solid they become, just like the other folks there.  So, basically, there is hope for the unsaved to find salvation after death.  They just have to accept Christ once they are there, which most of the vacationers can’t manage.  So, they choose hell anyway: “All that are in Hell, choose it” (75).

I know I haven’t done Lewis’ elegant explanation of this heaven/hell/purgatory any justice, but for brevity’s sake, I hope I hit the basics.

Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology has also come in handy, as I think about these issues. I’m inclined, along with most Church tradition, to assume that after death, you don’t get second chances.  Think about the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16. When the rich man, dwelling in hell asks Lazarus for some water, Abraham responds: “Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us” (25-26).  There are no tour groups passing from hell across that “great chasm.”

In addition, there’s a great verse in Hebrews about judgment following death: “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (9:27).  There’s nothing mentioned about any second chances in the middle. 

So, now that I’ve sorted out some of these key issues, I’m left with discussing the merits of the book.  Lewis hasn’t offered up heresy here.  He’s not challenging any of the key issues of the Christian faith such as the resurrection, the nature of God, Jesus’ divinity, and the like.  The book doesn’t come close to failing in the same serious ways, theologically, as the Shack (read my review here).  And its quality of writing puts the Shack to shame in every regard. 

Read the book for the characterizations of people who are so entrenched in sin that they can’t see Jesus standing right before them.  Lewis portrays several people who journey from hell, only to hop right back on the bus, when their creature comforts are challenged.  This is the heart of the book, not the details about why people can go from one place to another.  I certainly felt convicted when I saw in myself some of the qualities of the hell dwellers.  I want to be one of those solid types that hangs out with Jesus.

If I recommend any books that you’d like to purchase, consider buying them through Amazon using the links on my site, so I get a percent of the purchase price back to buy more books to review!

The Shack Alternative: The Pilgrim’s Progress

I’m having so much fun discussing The Shack with my very astute readers. I knew I could count on you guys for some very insightful and thought provoking responses!  To continue in that line of discussion, I thought I might provide an excellent alternative to reading The Shack, one that holds up to the truth and light of scripture and has also stood the test of time.  I’m speaking of John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, which is just as good today as it was 300 years ago.

It’s occurred to me that instead of merely trashing The Shack and telling people that their theology is warped, the best response might be to offer them an alternative that you could fully endorse.  Of course, the best source of truth is the Bible, but when it comes to easy chair fiction, The Pilgrim’s Progress is a great substitute for The Shack.  Like The Shack, it deals with the problems of human suffering, it allegorizes elements of the story, and it is a super best seller (in fact, the bestselling book of all time, next to the Bible).

Some of you might be a bit worried about reading a book written in the mid 1600s.  Rest assured, the language is a lot easier to read than Shakespeare’s verse, but it does require a bit of effort.  You’re not going to plow through it at the speed you might read a Danielle Steel novel, but after awhile, you’ll get used to the style.  You can even read it online for free here.  If the language drives you crazy, there are modern language versions of it, as well as children’s versions (for the kids at heart). 

Pilgrim’s Progress is divided into two parts, which were published several years apart.  The first part is the one we most commonly associate with the book.  Few people read the second part these days, and frankly, I think it’s a shame.  I suggest getting a book that includes both parts as well as one that cites the scripture verses in the margins (as Bunyan intended).  Some versions drop the scripture references entirely, and it’s helpful to read them along with the text, to guide you back to the Word if you have any questions.

The plot is very simple.  A man named “Christian” is an everyman who sets out on a journey to the “Celestial City” (heaven).  He encounters trials along the path, including people who are set on hindering his journey, such as “Mr. Worldly Wiseman,” “Mr. Legality,” and the “Giant Despair.” He slogs along in the “Slough of Despond,” walks up the “Hill of Difficulty,” and gets stuck in “Doubting Castle.”  Here, there are real enemies, but Christian himself also is undergoing a process of sanctification throughout the journey.  In the second part, Christian’s wife “Christiana” follows her husband’s example and goes down the path with her children. Personally, I think more women should take an interest in her story (but you have to read Christian’s first for it to make sense).

It’s a very straight forward allegory (some have criticized it as “overly simplistic”), without a lot of a fancy plot devices or emotional manipulation (but I admit that I cry at a couple places in the story), yet there’s truth that speaks to many generations.  You’ll find references to this book in many great works of literature because it’s influenced so many believers across the ages.  It’s woven into the pages of Little Women, Huckleberry Finn, and Jane Eyre.   

So while some might argue that The Shack is the book that speaks to this generation (i.e. Eugene Peterson), I’ll argue that Pilgrim’s Progress is the book that speaks to all generations.

Amy’s Marginalia: The Shack

Have you heard the buzz about the little book called The Shack?  I admit that I read some books because I’m so sick of hearing about them that I finally cave in.  This book sounded ridiculous to me, and I had zero interest in reading it.  But people just won’t shut up about it.  So, I caved.

Here’s the plot:  A guy named Mack goes to a shack to meet God who is named Papa and is actually an African American woman.  Got that?  But, Jesus is also hanging around in his workshop, along with a whispy, gardening, Asian lady named Sarayu who is supposed to be the Holy Spirit.

When I first read about the plot, I laughed.  It sounds like something from a cult’s Sunday school class for pre-schoolers.  I can see the coloring pages now.

But, I started getting upset when I saw this in Christian bookstores and being promoted by prominent Christians (most notably Michael W. Smith). However, what really got me riled up (we’ll call it righteous indignation) was the quote on the cover, calling it this generation’s Pilgrim’s Progress.

William P. Young is no John Bunyan. And this little work of heresy is no Pilgrim’s Progress, the most printed work of literature next to the Bible.

Bunyan and I have a bit of a history.  I wrote my Master’s thesis on him, and I’ve spent years reading and researching his work.  I’d recognize a Bunyan if I saw one.

John Bunyan was a puritan in the 1600s who was persecuted because of his faith.  In fact, he wrote the Pilgrim’s Progress while in a jail cell, impoverished and supporting his family by making shoe laces in his cell.  That’s poor.  He was in jail because he didn’t agree with the state church and the state’s politics.  He wanted to lead his own congregation and to preach freely.  His doctrine was sound, bible based, Trinitarian, and also Calvinist (for those who care about that kind of thing).

While sitting in jail, amidst his own trials, Bunyan wrote for his persecuted flock an allegory about the dangers and snares Christians face on the road to the “Celestial City” (heaven).  Buyan allegorized ideas, the problems people face on this road, such as the “slough of despond” and “vanity fair.”  Young’s story also addresses pain, but it’s the overarching “why is there evil in the world?” question.  His approach isn’t to allegorize ideas.  He chooses to allegorize God himself, something that Buyan never did in all his allegories (this might be because it would have gone against his puritan iconoclasm and been a form of idolatry for him).

According to an article in USA Today, Young grew up a MK (missionary’s kid), where he experienced sexual abuse at the hands of the tribesmen.  He’s had seminary training through the Christian and Missionary Alliance and was also a pastor for a Foursquare church for awhile.  But, what could have been the foundation for solid theology didn’t end up that way.  Young was working a series of odd jobs while writing this, supposedly for his children, but after failing to find a mainstream publisher, he eventually self published.  A strong word of mouth got the publishing industry to reconsider their previous objections to the work.  I can only assume that they were hesitant to publish a first time author with blatant heresy in his writing.

Both men faced hardship in their life.  No doubt there.  I won’t get into “who had it worse.”  Wheras both men are committed to dealing with the issue of human suffering, only Bunyan fully looks to scripture to find the answers.  No, I’m not critiquing Young for his lack of scripture verses, where Bunyan cites many.  I’m taking issue with Young’s weak theology and misuse (or neglect?) of scripture to shape his picture of the trinity.

There are two great critiques of the book available online in video format from two authoritative sources who can speak to the doctrine and misuse of scripture in the book.  One is Pastor Mark Driscoll (a regular on this site).  The other is Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist theological Seminary.

Some of the most powerful issues they raise are the problems of the trinity being separated into three who are never fully one (hence the problem with making an allegory out of the trinity–nothing compares), Young’s denial of the authority that is biblically acknowledged in the trinity (God the Father in charge with JC and HS submitting), the universality of salvation (Jesus will seek and save everyone), and the low view of scripture given by the “trinity” characters.

I’m not one to say, “Don’t read this book.”  But, I am one to caution you to hold the Bible in one hand while you read it.  Just because it’s a work of fiction, it doesn’t mean you can let your guard down for one moment.  In fact, theology comes less thinly disguised than this. The DaVinci Code comes to mind as a prime example.

One final word.  Then I’ll shut up with the lecture.  I’m not saying there aren’t thought provoking, inspiring moments in the book.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s a poorly written, predictable, clunky, and often sermonizing narrative.  But I was convicted that I need to call Jesus my “Abba” (Papa) more often, as Jesus instructed us to do.  The parts about forgiveness of others were also very insightful.  I’m still digesting those.  So, no, I’m not dismissing everything.  But I’m also not going to buy a copy of the book to endorse it with my money (I borrowed the one I read), nor am I going to encourage others to buy it just to read the few good points in the pages.  I think the dangers far outweigh the benefits.